Australia is facing a controversy that is all too familiar to Americans. Fundamentalists in state schools are teaching children that humans and dinosaurs lived together and Noah brought dinosaur eggs on to the Ark.
Children are also taught that Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs “because they were under a protective spell.”
This is consistent with Palintology — the new science advanced by Sarah Palin — which insists that man and dinosaur must have co-existed despite carbon dating and simple logic.
Source: News
TraderB,
At any given time, the NIH is determining the toxicity of about 20 different compounds (a process which takes several years). This leaves an large number of chemicals developed each year which do not get tested. Since dispersants have never before been used in such quantities (or at such a depth) anyone who says they know about the toxicity to the gulf is at best leaping to a hasty conclusion. As has been pointed out, the mess in the gulf is one huge experiment – any responsible scientist would wait until the data comes in before jumping to conclusions (or at least carefully qualify any conclusions). The fact is that we are taking a big risk on the say-so of BP, a company that has made a determined effort to hide the facts about this spill from day one – at this point, BP has no credibility to say that the COREXIT is harmless and no one should take their word on anything – they’ve already broken trust, so at this point we need to verify everything.
You said:
“It is not my statement. I copied it from the executive summary of the book on Creationism by the National Academy of Sciences.”
It’s still an important point which should be repeated – thanks for posting the link.
Slarti,
Don’t you just love those adept at the google when they attempt to challenge the knowledge of someone who has spent years learning his/her art? I meet your years of coming to understand the intricacies of your art and raise you one cut and paste!
Slartibartfast
1, August 3, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Blouise said:
Solomonesque 🙂
You mean I cut the baby in half? Excellent! (steepling fingers…)
===============================================================
Well … I meant to imply wisdom … and I wish I knew how to icon steepling fingers ….. ^ … ?
Slartibartfast,
It is not my statement. I copied it from the executive summary of the book on Creationism by the National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024
TraderB,
A couple of minor quibbles with your last post – I would use the term ‘datum’ where you used ‘fact’ in order to avoid the implicit notion that it is something that can be objectively verified to be true. Also, I would not have included the term ‘Law’ as I think that using it tend to be confusing for non-scientists who think that something called a ‘Law’ is somehow stronger than something called a ‘theory’ when really it’s just an arbitrary term for a theory which has been around for a long time and extensively verified. I think that using the term ‘law’ contributes to the problem you noted:
I quoted this just in case any creationists (Tootie, are you out there?) were reading this – I get just as annoyed as you seem to when people confuse the colloquial meaning of the term ‘theory’ with the scientific meaning.
Blouise said:
“Solomonesque :)”
You mean I cut the baby in half? Excellent! (steepling fingers…)
Elaine M
“The dispersants used in BP’s draconian experiment contain solvents such as petroleum distillates and 2-butoxyethanol.”
That article is misleading. Corexit 9500A contains no 2-butoxyethanol. Corexit 9527A does contain it, but they used it for only a few days after the spill.
Petroleum distillates are the only toxic part of the first. It is some mixture of gasoline, naptha, diesel, kerosene or lubricating oil. The human toxicity of these are well known. Basically they are just adding more oil to the crude in about a 1:75 ration.
Slartibartfast,
Solomonesque 🙂
Gyges,
Mostly I think you demonstrated your ignorance of the correct spelling of ‘implicit’ 😉 – which I don’t mind since I’ve also been pointing out that it’s TraderB’s implicit hypothesis that because microbes have eaten the oil there is no longer any environmental impact that he has utterly failed to support. I don’t think anyone in this exchange has demonstrated a significant ignorance of the scientific method (and I haven’t been shy about expressing myself when I feel otherwise…) – TraderB refused to address the condition you set for your continued participation in the discussion resulting (predictably) in your abandoning the discussion. As I pointed out in another thread months ago (in a similar situation), you can only participate in a debate with someone if they are willing to engage in it and clearly TraderB has done a poor job of convincing you to continue.
Gyges wrote:
As a post script regarding my knowledge about the scientific method: why don’t we ask the working scientist that’s been following the discussion.
Do you disagree with any part of this?
TERMS USED IN DESCRIBING THE NATURE OF SCIENCE
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences
and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
The contention that evolution should be taught as a “theory, not as a fact” confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.”
From Huffington Post (8/2/2010)
Oilgate! BP and All the President’s Men (Except One) Seek to Contain Truth of Leak in the Gulf
By Riki Ott
Marine toxicologist and Exxon Valdez survivor
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riki-ott/emoilgateem-bp-and-all-th_b_667709.html
Excerpt:
Since Day 1, BP has consistently downplayed the size of its gusher and the damage it was causing to wildlife and people. This is what happens when governments leave the spiller in charge of the spill or, in this case, the criminal in charge of the crime scene. Evidence disappears as the criminal seeks to minimize its liability for damages. What should be a war on the spill becomes a war against the truth, the environment, and the injured people.
The official story emerging now from BP and most of the president’s men – and now being echoed by some national media – is: the oil is gone; the danger is past and was exaggerated; the dispersants were effective in keeping oil from reaching the shore; the oil that does reach shore is mostly weathered and not toxic; and federal officials have found no unsafe levels of oil in air or water samples and no evidence of illness due to oil or dispersant use.
As my father used to say: Good story if true.
The official story does not match the reality that I saw from the Cessna or have heard from people I have met during community visits since the well was temporarily sealed – and ever since I first arrived in early May. Public health is a huge concern – and with good reason.
BP has created Frankenstein in its Gulf laboratory: an oil-dispersant chemical stew that so far has contaminated over 44,000 square miles of ocean and caused internal bleeding and hemorrhaging in workers and dolphins alike, according to Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst at the EPA, who recently blew the whistle on the industry-government cover up. BP has sprayed dispersants steadily in the Gulf with Coast Guard approval from the beginning – under the sea, on the surface, offshore, near shore, in inland waters, at night, during the day – despite a public uproar to cease and desist.
The dispersants used in BP’s draconian experiment contain solvents such as petroleum distillates and 2-butoxyethanol. Solvents dissolve oil, grease, and rubber. Spill responders have told me that the hard rubber impellors in their engines and the soft rubber bushings on their outboard motor pumps are falling apart and need frequent replacement. They say the plastic corks used to float the absorbent booms during skimming operations dissolve after a week of use. They say the hard epoxy resin on and below the waterline of their fiberglass boats is also dissolving and chipping away. Divers have told me that they have had to replace the soft rubber o-rings on their gear after dives in the Gulf and that the oil-chemical stew eats its way into even the Hazmat dive suits.
Given this evidence, it should be no surprise that solvents are also notoriously toxic to people, something the medical community has long known. In Generations at Risk, medical doctor Ted Schettler and others warn that solvents can rapidly enter the human body: They evaporate in air and are easily inhaled, they penetrate skin easily, and they cross the placenta into fetuses. For example, 2-butoxyethanol is a human health hazard substance: It is a fetal toxin and it breaks down blood cells, causing blood and kidney disorders.
Trader,
Still trying to make this about me? Well, since the validity of my opinion in no way effects the correctness of your thesis (see the Dawkin’s Clip), I’d say that’s a poor route to go to convince anyone that you’re right. Either way, I told you my conditions for continuing this conversation, you failed to meet them. I’m done
As a post script regarding my knowledge about the scientific method: why don’t we ask the working scientist that’s been following the discussion. By the way, I don’t disagree with your statement that scientific theories need to be falsifiable, I just disagree with your implicate conclusion that that absolves you from having to show evidence that supports your claims.
Slarti,
Have I demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the scientific method?
The video is even more misleading. They quote a toxicologist as saying that the hydrocarbon levels are very high to condemn Corexit. Hydrocarbons make up the bulk of crude oil. They are used in Corexit, but there is no way to distinguish the two. They would have to find propylene glycol or docusate sodium to say it came from Corexit 9500A. The human toxicity of both is extremely low.
The actual L. A. Times article is more interesting. At the end of the article, the head smeller states:
“Last night, I went to a restaurant and took a whiff,” he said. “I knew right away the lobster was bad.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/13/nation/la-na-fish-sniffers-20100713
Like I told you, use your nose for seafood.
Woosty’s still a Cat
This helps explain another reason for the use of the dispersant, Corexit, in unprecedented quantities. Because if there’s no oil “seen” in the water, Gulf fishermen by law can fish. And if Gulf fishermen can fish, then BP doesn’t have to pay them for sitting at home going slowly mad.’
“http://thedonkeyedge.com/2010/08/02/the-nose-knows/”
Typical lefty blog. This is what he says in the intro:
“….check out this report about what your dispersant, Corexit, has found its way into.”
This is what the official says:
““We use specific terms for the aroma,” said Downs, who supervises the seafood smellers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s marine lab here. “Diesel oil. Bunker oil. Asphalt. Rubber-band-like. Tar.”
Those are components of the crude oil, not necessarily of Corexit. Maybe, we should require a reading comprehension test for all posters on the Internet. It would save a lot of time.
Aussies must really like Syd Hoff.
I’ll provide a link to the said article when you start doing the same. You make blanket assertions without and iota of truth. I have already provided a link in a earlier article on a thread on this site.
I will also add that John Kerry recently paid taxes on his little puddle jumper. The state that he had it docket at was not his home state and therefore taxes were not paid and it is claimed to be worth about 7 million.
Back to the Gulf oil spill:
From Huffington Post (8/2/2010)
Feds Dramatically Increase Oil Spill Estimate, Making BP’s The Worst Oil Accident In History
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/02/feds-dramatically-increas_n_668149.html
Excerpt:
BP’s disastrous oil well explosion sent over 4 million barrels of oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico, the Coast Guard announced Monday, dramatically increasing the most recent federal estimate.
That’s more than 170 million gallons, and makes it the worst accidental oil spill in history — outpacing the 1979 Ixtoc spill, also in the Gulf of Mexico, which lasted for a year.
A federal scientific task force, finally allowed access to the wellhead just prior to it being capped on July 15, took elaborate pressure readings and other measurements to reach its conclusions.
Federal officials now estimate that 53,000 barrels of oil per day were gushing from the well immediately preceding its closure, and that even more was coming out earlier. The well exploded on April 20, killing 11 workers.
Scientists now estimate that a total of 4.9 million barrels were released from the well, with about 800,000 barrels of that successfully recaptured by BP once the first containment cap was installed.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsMTB828XCA&hl=en_US&fs=1]
TraderB, there are better noses out there than yours 😉
‘ Robert Downs leads the scientists who sniff at fish. Each day, his team of seven sensory experts dip their noses into large Pyrex bowls of snapper, tuna and other raw seafood to test for even a whiff of the pungent oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. This is not Grand Cru wine. “We use specific terms for the aroma,” said Downs, who supervises the seafood smellers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s marine lab here. “Diesel oil. Bunker oil. Asphalt. Rubber-band-like. Tar.”
Each olfactory analyst has a super schnoz, able to smell oil diluted to one part per million. That’s 40 times more sensitive than your average proboscis.
Proboscis means nose. Had to look that one up myself.
It’s also more sensitive than science can explain. Last month, the team caught a faint scent in a red snapper that chemists and toxicologists could not confirm despite three days of testing at an NOAA marine science lab in Seattle. The result: A rich fishing area off Louisiana’s coast stayed off-limits.
“The nose knows,” Downs said.
“We have found tainted fish,” said John Stein, who runs the BP oil spill seafood safety testing program for NOAA. “It’s not uncommon.”
Under federal law, fishing is banned if oil is seen in the water.
This helps explain another reason for the use of the dispersant, Corexit, in unprecedented quantities. Because if there’s no oil “seen” in the water, Gulf fishermen by law can fish. And if Gulf fishermen can fish, then BP doesn’t have to pay them for sitting at home going slowly mad.’
http://thedonkeyedge.com/2010/08/02/the-nose-knows/
And while creationists want to stop the clock science just keeps rolling along: Triceratops may have been the juvenile form of Torosaurous argue John Scannella and Jack Horner.
**
“Morph-osaurs: How shape-shifting dinosaurs deceived us
DINOSAURS were shape-shifters. Their skulls underwent extreme changes throughout their lives, growing larger, sprouting horns then reabsorbing them, and changing shape so radically that different stages look to us like different species.
This discovery comes from a study of the iconic dinosaur triceratops and its close relative torosaurus. Their skulls are markedly different but are actually from the very same species, argue John Scannella and Jack Horner at the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Montana.
Triceratops had three facial horns and a short, thick neck-frill with a saw-toothed edge. Torosaurus also had three horns, though at different angles, and a much longer, thinner, smooth-edged frill with two large holes in it. So it’s not surprising that Othniel Marsh, who discovered both in the late 1800s, considered them to be separate species.
Now Scannella and Horner say that triceratops is merely the juvenile form of torosaurus. As the animal aged, its horns changed shape and orientation and its frill became longer, thinner and less jagged. Finally it became fenestrated, producing the classic torosaurus form (see diagram, right). …”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727713.500-morphosaurs-how-shapeshifting-dinosaurs-deceived-us.html
**
I suspect that creationist’s are so open to the fiction that dino’s and humans co-existed because it’s the ultimate childhood fantasy. Everyone love’s dinosaurs; I always thought the way to determine if there were aliens among us was to poll everyone on how they felt about dinosaurs. If they didn’t like them, weren’t captivated by them, then those folks were probably aliens or at least required further testing to make sure one way or the other.
For creationists to be able to play out their childhood ‘Flintstones’ fantasy must make them very happy indeed, wacky but happy.
And for one of the funniest comic performances I’ve ever seen (yes, it’s about dinosaurs) check this out:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vSY_rB928c&hl=en_US&fs=1]